So, how is that Kirk and Sulu survived the fall from the drill? They were beamed at the last minute? But that didn't kill their momentum, and they did seem to "land" on the pad.
Gave the movie a second viewing.
- Thread starter Nerdius Maximus
- Start date
It is obvious by the very fact that they survived that the transporter's faisafes, compensators and other advanced 23rd century imaginary components killed enough momentum for them to "land" on the platform safely and with no chance of damage.
Okay, lets take a look at these
1) Not a Plot hole, but unprecedented. The mechanisms for each step are explained in the dialogue.
2) They made sense to me. He wants revenge on the Federation for doing nothing while Romulus burned, and revenge on Spock for failing to save Romulus (as he percieves it, a betrayal)
3) There was a filmed line of dialog that references this, but it is quite the coincidence. The exchange was basically Kirk pointing out the amazing coincidence, and Spock theorizing that it was a way for the Timeline to try and repair itself. Also, the Quantum Probability of the Many Worlds interpretation states that some events occur in more parallel realities than others.
4) The timeline is already 25 years altered, and he has no means of Time Travel. Young Spock also brings up the Alternate Reality explanation, so older Spock probably concluded the same thing. In the final scene, he reveals that he "infered" about paradox's to Kirk, so Old Spock obviously knew about the Alternate Reality.
5) He starts out as a "douchebag", but he matures as the film progresses. Old and confident=confident. Young and confident=cocky. Character development.
6) Science mistake, and gringeworthy. Not a plot hole.
7,8,9) Science mistakes. Not plot holes.
10) Romulus destroyed, Nero pissed and blames Spock and the Federation for it. Science was dodgy, but not a plot hole.
11) It works that way because it a) preserves 40+ years of continuity, b) allows for changes necessary for broad modern audience appeal, c) allows story to be faster and more streamlined and d) is more in line with ACTUAL quantum theory. Not a plot hole.
12) Alternate Reality. Technology principals are consistent, though portrayed differently. Transporter capabilities (from Delta Vega to Enterprise and from Saturn to Earth) from Prime Future, so explainably advanced. Rest is visual style and not plot hole.
13) Kelvin from period (2230s) never before portrayed in Star Trek. Not actually inconsistent. Not plot hole.
14) Still, not plot holes.
15) Chasim is clearly a QUARRY. Look at fence, chasm walls, etc. for physical evidence. Not plot hole regardless.
Well, I certainly understand many of the issues you have, but these are not actual plot holes, simply bad science (not new to Star Trek) and design decisions you disapprove of.
Leaving all else aside, where was this explained? Orci's argued that it happened because of an off-screen recommendation by Spock Prime, which still seems entirely ludicrous to me. On screen all we saw was, "Hey, look at us admirals! We made a special order allowing us to make a cocky kid who (arguably) got darned lucky -- once -- right after we put him on academic probation for cheating -- into the most powerful person in the entire galaxy."
The special order explains the process but none of the logic behind such a dramatic move, which was beyond unprecedented. Beyond beyond unprecedented, even. That's a plot hole. So, please explain where the dialogue explained it.
A plot hole is when something necessary to the plot happens for no logical reason. Thus, scientific oversights are plot holes if the science is used to advance the plot and all the science is wrong. In this case, that happened in spades. All the science problems mentioned are plot holes.
As for the design choices: I've actually defended them (and the alternate timeline theory) on numerous occasions. I include them on this list because, whatever my opinion may be of them, they are still very controversial and regarded, at least by a large group of Trekkies, as major discontinuities -- and, thanks to their plot implications, plot holes.
In fact, that's why I included everything on this list. Some I agree are plot holes, some I don't. I mean, SalvadorHardin is right: some of this is just because Star Trek is a movie, not a documentary. What I think is indisputable is that there are some pretty enormous gaps in plot logic throughout this film. And that was really the only point I was trying to make, in response to Cheapjack's astonishment that anyone saw something wrong with the plot. As evidence, I think I need only present the contents of this forum and the many questions asked by confused fans. If it has to be explained in the form of a theoretical hypothesis after the movie, it was a plot hole when it was in the movie. Doesn't mean I don't love the movie; just that I think the movie is best viewed by carefully averting one's eyes from the often-painful plot and focusing on the characters.
In some cases, of course, like characterization, there's just not much to discuss. I think Nero's motivations were the most bizarre and flimsy of any Trek villain in history. You disagree. There's not much I can say to that, so I've just got to chalk it up to Your Mileage May Vary.
I'm willing to buy that it was a quarry, though.
I don't even have a problem with Kirk's promotion from Cadet to Captain. The way I see it, Uhura was a Lieutenant as soon as she was posted to the Enterprise, so it's fair to assume that if Kirk wasn't in trouble he'd have had the same rank on assignment to a ship (which probably would have been the Enterprise as Pike likes him). Pike had an all new crew but wasn't in charge for long, neither was Spock. Kirk was the man in possession and he was instrumental in getting the required result. Pike will have put in a good word, and maybe Starfleet thought that raw ability and potential trumped experience in this case.
I prefer to think that 'the multiverse' as an entity tries to keep everything the same, therefore events happen, maybe in different ways, but aiming towards the same result ie that crew, all assembled on the Enterprise. Had Kirk's father not been killed by Nero he would have gone into Starfleet earlier, and therefore been further along the route to becoming a Captain at the time the 'alternate universe' puts him as a senior cadet. Three or four years here and there makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.
And let's face it, a retread of the original story and timeline, though faithful to Canon, would ultimately have been rubbish because we all know what's going to happen. This is what Trek needed imho, shaking out of mothballs.
I prefer to think that 'the multiverse' as an entity tries to keep everything the same, therefore events happen, maybe in different ways, but aiming towards the same result ie that crew, all assembled on the Enterprise. Had Kirk's father not been killed by Nero he would have gone into Starfleet earlier, and therefore been further along the route to becoming a Captain at the time the 'alternate universe' puts him as a senior cadet. Three or four years here and there makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.
And let's face it, a retread of the original story and timeline, though faithful to Canon, would ultimately have been rubbish because we all know what's going to happen. This is what Trek needed imho, shaking out of mothballs.
Having a problem with something in the plot isn't a "plot hole"
Where is the plot hole?
As Dennis put it, it's an unlikely coincidence, but not a plot hole.
It's a separate timeline. The other timeline is running just fine. Not a plot hole.
How is this a plot hole? That's a problem with a portrayal of a character.
That one maybe.. but it isn't a plot hole.
Big deal, though the temporal effects you can't prove otherwise...
Where's the plot hole?
Essentially so is all of time travel. Where is the plot hole?
Where is the plot hole?
Where is the plot hole?
Where is the plot hole?
Quarry. Where is the plot hole?
You missed a lot....
Many of your complaints were just aesthetic complaints, which weren't plot holes.
But this has been answered more adequately than I could answer from above, however.
To repeat, "A plot hole is when something necessary to the plot happens for no logical reason." The promotion of Kirk to captain happens for no logical reason.
When people do things for no plausibly logical reason, when astronomical improbabilities happen for no plausibly logical reason, when characters egregiously violate their own characterizations for plausibly logical reason, when technology evolves or devolves dramatically for no logically plausible reason, and, perhaps above all, when things happen that wildly violate the universe's own established laws of physics (including the supernova, the black holes, and the alternate timeline) for no logically plausible reason, those are all plot holes.
Of course, plausibility is subjective, so, as I've also said, Your Mileage May Vary. But claiming that nothing on that list can even be considered by a reasonable viewer to be a plot hole strikes me as awfully silly. In short, while a reasonable person can certainly disagree or agree with some or all of the items on that list (even I don't agree with that whole list), dismissing the entire list as not even having to do with plot (instead calling the concerns "aesthetic" or merely "having a problem with something in the plot") is just absurd.
And, yes, I can say definitely that the temporal effects of black holes do not work that way. If you are pulled into a black hole, you will be crushed into nothingness -- assuming you can ever reach the center of it, which you can't, because gravity's effect on time ensures that the heat death of the universe will occur before you actually get to the center of the thing. This is fairly well established by modern physics. Or, at least, it was when I last read a physics book -- which, admittedly, was quite some time ago.
I'm really quite surprised this conversation is happening. I thought it was fairly well-established on this board that the vast majority of us loved the movie, but that the plot was generally laughable. (I, at least, certainly got some good laughs with my friends at the expense of Spock Prime's magical supernova.) If the plot does indeed have such stalwart defenders... I can't say I care too much about debating the point any further, and so I tactfully withdraw, duly impressed by the defenders' ability to rationalize all that plot weirdness.
How did the alternate timeline OCCUR, though? I wasn't really watching, (twice) when it was explained. Did Nero open it up? Why is older Spock there?
Forgive me, I'm a bit dim and getting old.
Back in the prime universe, Spock throws Red Matter into the supernova that destroyed Romulus. Nero with the Narada was there too.
A black hole is formed. Neither the Narada, nor Spock in the Jellyfish can escape from it's gravitational pull and are sucked in. The Narada first, the Jellyfish a bit later.
The Narada exits the black hole in what is an alternate universe. 25 years later Spock also exits in said alternate universe.
I haven't read it, but there's a pretty long, pretty detailed review of it here (TrekMovie.com). Hope it helps!http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/10/lib...udio-book-limited-signed-hardcover-announced/
To this day I still laugh when I think about sending a 170 year old ambassador on a suicide mission with enough "Red Matter" to destroy the galaxy.
May I add one note to the issue of Kirk becoming an instant captain? Being a military brat, I want to point out that, briefly, the Federation was at war with the Nerada. Spock lays that out when he calls Nero a war criminal. During war, rapid promotions are much more common, including field promotions.
For me, plot holes and errors in science make me wince, but I'm a "character" person. As long as they get the characters right, or at least good, I'm happy. Half the plot holes mentioned in this thread, I didn't even notice.
To get back on topic, I came out of the theater a bit stunned and not sure whether I loved the movie or hated it. Time edged me toward "love", so I got the DVD. Now I've seen it... uh, I think 14 times. And I love it. Think I'll watch it again tomorrow, in fact.
For me, plot holes and errors in science make me wince, but I'm a "character" person. As long as they get the characters right, or at least good, I'm happy. Half the plot holes mentioned in this thread, I didn't even notice.
To get back on topic, I came out of the theater a bit stunned and not sure whether I loved the movie or hated it. Time edged me toward "love", so I got the DVD. Now I've seen it... uh, I think 14 times. And I love it. Think I'll watch it again tomorrow, in fact.
Even taking that into account, are we really to believe there are no other officers qualified to command a starship that Starfleet has to turn to a cadet that hasn't even graduated the Academy yet? And why is the Academy disciplianry board promoting anyone to captain and placing them in command of the flagship? Wouldn't the authority of the Academy disciplinary board not extend beyond disciplining cadets? Shouldn't someone else be promoting people and deciding who commands the flagship?
No, Kirk's instant promotion makes no sense at all.
I think when a lot of folks say "plot hole" they mean "a plot point that strains my ability or desire to suspend disbelief." That's fair comment, but as you say is not really a "hole" or gap in the logic of the plot.
I thought the production fared very well on the home screen -- although I've only seen it once since we bought it in November. I'm getting the urge to watch it again, though. I loved it at the theater; saw it 21 times there. Also have been listening to the music soundtrack lately.May I add one note to the issue of Kirk becoming an instant captain? Being a military brat, I want to point out that, briefly, the Federation was at war with the Nerada. Spock lays that out when he calls Nero a war criminal. During war, rapid promotions are much more common, including field promotions.
For me, plot holes and errors in science make me wince, but I'm a "character" person. As long as they get the characters right, or at least good, I'm happy. Half the plot holes mentioned in this thread, I didn't even notice.
To get back on topic, I came out of the theater a bit stunned and not sure whether I loved the movie or hated it. Time edged me toward "love", so I got the DVD. Now I've seen it... uh, I think 14 times. And I love it. Think I'll watch it again tomorrow, in fact.
I like your idea; I don't know if you noticed this already, but Kirk was a lieutenant at the time of the space jump, as shown in this screen cap from that scene:
I like your idea; I don't know if you noticed this already, but Kirk was a lieutenant at the time of the space jump, as shown in this screen cap from that scene:
Excellent eyes you have! But since Uhura was, I imagine all of them were. Also, they were the graduating class, if I recall the novelization correctly - they just hadn't yet had the graduating ceremony, but they were all grads.
I believe that the board that we saw was an overall Academy board, not just a disciplinary one. They most likely did not do the promotion, but simply presented the commendation and oversaw the transfer of command.
But I do agree that, even if we can argue the promotion angle, it is a bit odd to put someone who's about 25 years old in charge of the fleet's flagship!
Not if he's the only one of all your officers whose orders saved the planet. Most of them were safe in the Laurentian System -- or trying their damndest to get there, against Kirk's advice. None of them deserve the command more than Kirk.
(It appears Sulu was not a lieutenant, btw; if the script lines up on the screen, there's only room for one letter.)
(It appears Sulu was not a lieutenant, btw; if the script lines up on the screen, there's only room for one letter.)
Last edited:
I don't believe the script does line up. The two diamonds in the center of the screen represent their spatial positions and Sulu's is offset about a one-character space to the left of Kirk's. If there is an "LT" in front of "H.SULU" as there is in front of "J.KIRK," the stem of Sulu's "L" would be aligned with the line to his (blue) marker in the same way as Kirk's is with the line to the red one.
There's this, as well -- earlier in the movie, when they are just about to depart for Vulcan, you get this exchange:
In the same scene, Sulu is also seen wearing a lieutenant's single stripe.
Good point, Jeri!Similar threads
